Home 

1. Does the author take the Scriptural “context” seriously?  That is to say, does she carefully note when the passage was written, why it was written, and to whom it was written?  Further, does she set forth the clear and plain sense of the passage before she attempts to apply its meaning to the lives of women today?

Aymer does not take the context of the Scripture seriously. Nor does she use first century documentation. Instead, the context Aymer wants us to take seriously for the Beatitudes is a context constructed and imposed by Twentieth and Twenty-First Century socio-politico categories of “honor–shame” and “Empire.” She does this by looking at the context through the lens of liberation theology as well as an economic political document entitled the Accra Confession produced by the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.[i] Because of this she does not set forth the clear and plain sense of the passage, nor does she give a fair assessment of why the text was written. Such an imposed context puts the reader in a position to read the text from a point of view quite distant and foreign from the text, since who is to say that Twenty-First Century ideas of honor and shame and Empire or sociological categories held true in the First Century. Far better to read the text from the perspective of a disciple or follower of Jesus Christ as Matthew invites us to do by including us in this private mountaintop session in the first place (Matthew 5:1-2).

 

One of the most glaring places where Aymer’s constructed context overshadows biblical integrity and obscures the clear and plain sense of the passage is in her definition of the Greek and Hebrew vocabulary she highlights throughout the study. While her translations of the traditional words “Kingdom of Heaven,” (p. 13 fn. 2; Matthew 5:3 TNIV), “meek,” ( pp. 23-24, 25; Matthew 5:5 TNIV), and “righteousness,” (pp.32-33; Matthew 5:6 TNIV) are all contestable, perhaps nowhere does this imposed context affect translation in a more prominent or foundational way than with the word that governs the Beatitudes, “blessed.” 

       

In Lesson One Aymer writes that the meaning of the Greek word makarios means “‘blessed by the community’ or ‘honored/honorable.’” Using this interpretation she turns the first part of the text and later lessons into a command that the followers of Jesus honor the poor and that they do so without any qualification.

 

 Aymer’s translation of makarios is taken from a chapter in the Journal, Semeia 68: Honor and Shame in the World of the Bible published in 1996. The chapter, written by K.C. Hanson is “How Honorable! How Shameful!.”[ii]  What Aymer does not explain to the reader is that this translation is part of a controversy about how “blessed” should be translated. In fact, Hanson, after listing the different translations of the word states that he is arguing that “makarios and ouai are part of the larger word-field of ‘honor and shame’"…” Hanson also uses the word in such a way that it cannot mean a future blessing in the afterlife. All of this is speculative, controversial and unhelpful for a Presbyterian Women’s Bible Study.

       

It would have served the purposes of the study better to look at how the word makarios is used in Scripture; rather than to interpret it through a post-modern socio-politico lens. Makarios is the word that the Greek translators of the OT used for the Hebrew word ashar that occurs most often in the Psalms, and so a quick look at how the word is used in the Psalms should provide us with an understanding of the word more akin to the use of someone as familiar with the OT as was Matthew. In the Psalms the word is used to describe those who put their trust in and find their refuge or help in the Lord (e.g., Ps 2:12; 34:8; 40:4; 84:12; 146:5). It is also used to describe those who are forgiven (32:1-2), those who experience the Lord’s discipline (94:12), who keep his ways and act justly (1:1; 41:1;106:3; 119:1); who fear him (112:1; 128:1); and many of the uses of this word are used of those who seek the Lord and dwell with him, the idea being that people who are makarios, blessed, are those who live all their life “before the face of the Lord” to put it the Hebrew way (33:12; 89:15; 119:2; 144:15). Psalm 84:5 describes those who are blessed as those who find their strength in the Lord and have the highway to Zion in their hearts (ESV)—it is not hard then to hear an echo of this sentiment in the promise of the Kingdom of God to those who are blessed in Matthew. What is hard to hear is any indication from the Psalms that being blessed means being honored by one’s community, it simply isn’t there.

 

Therefore, while the word makarios does not necessarily mean blessed by God, neither does it, in this context, necessarily mean honored by the community. The ones blessed or happy are so as disciples. They are the ones dependent on God in all things including their relationship with the Lord. As R.T. France writes in the Tyndale Commentary on Matthew:

 

The beatitudes thus outline, the attitudes of the true disciple, the one who has accepted the demands of God’s kingdom, in contrast with the attitudes of the ‘man of the world’; and they present this as the best way of life not only in its intrinsic goodness but in its results. [iii]

 

And Darrell L. Bock in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on The New Testament on Luke writes, “They [the beatitudes] declare God’s promised acceptance of the disciples for choosing to follow Jesus and enter into this walk (Matt.5:1; Luke 6:20a).”[iv] The concern here is that the text does not teach that disciples are to honor the poor or oppressed despite their lifestyle or rejection of Christ. Instead the Christian is to lead a life that conforms to the life of Jesus which includes not only suffering but care for the poor and oppressed. 

2. Is there a contemporary political, philosophical, or theological “agenda” that the author “reads into” her understanding of the text, or is the text allowed to speak for itself?

Certainly there is. Much of this can be seen in the answer to the first question. But the larger answer is that Aymer uses both liberation theology and the Accra Confession to inform her understanding of the text. The theology she uses and the confession (which is not really a confession, cf. pp.5, 79-82) are political. Accra is also an economic paper with a decidedly socialist slant. Aymer not only reads both back into the text, she also uses Accra to apply practical teaching to women’s lives rather than using the scripture text.

While it is admirable that the author of the study encourages women to “move from thought to action” and so, “deepen our practice of faith” (p.4, box); she does so by inviting them to write their own confession without a proper definition of what a confession is. In fact, both Accra and the guidelines for women to write confessions are confusing because both are used as confessions of sin. While Aymer is right that, “Confession includes telling the truth about the glory and grace of God,” she adds, “and the fact that we, in our humanity, never fully live up to that grace” (p. 4) and so conflates the definitions of a Confession of Faith and a confession of sin. A proper Confession of Faith is not a confession of sin, but a confession of Christ. 

3. What speaks with the most authority to the author -- the plain meaning of Scripture itself, or other, extra-biblical sources?

Aymer’s political viewpoint shapes her exegesis of scripture. For instance in lesson two her interest in the effect of Rome on its conquered subjects outweighs almost all other considerations of the meaning of the text. Two examples have to do with Jesus’ gift of life and his forgiveness of sin. Aymer turns the reader’s attention away from these actions of Jesus and insists that the reader pay attention to Rome.

In the first, Jesus’ gift of life, she writes:

While we do not know the specifics of the death of the widow of Nain’s son, or the daughter of Jairus, whenever we see the sick in the New Testament, we should ask: did Roman occupation make matters worse? (p. 17).

In the second example, Jesus’ forgiveness of sin, Aymer writes:

Therefore, while Tiberius Caesar had no personal responsibility for the woman weeping on Jesus feet (7:36-50), Rome’s policies—economic, social, and political—may have pushed her to the point of desperation and forced her to make the choices for which she was later ashamed (p. 17).

In another example of her overriding interest in Empire throughout the study, Aymer comments on her translation of the “Kingdom of Heaven” as “the dominion of God” and says, "this sort of language was deeply political" (p.8).  Her justification for this assertion is to recount the oppressive political situation in Palestine at the time, and the situation of the poor in regard to the Roman Empire.  However, such an assertion does not eliminate the possibility that “God’s dominion” can be understood as a spiritual rather than political reality—in fact, perhaps more so because dominion is an abstract concept while Kingdom refers to a concrete reality with borders and rulers.  So by such an assertion, she reveals her bias towards making the study political.

 

While it is good to be reminded of the tyranny of the pax Romana that would have made the lives of people in its grasp all the more difficult, it is not the main point of these accounts in Matthew’s Gospel. Perhaps if she were to have used chapters 1 and 2 or 22:15-22 the political element would have more influence in interpretation, but all that takes place in Matthew’s gospel is clearly not political, and here it is inserted in such a way as to obscure not illumine the text. This kind of attention to peripheral details due to the author’s preferred political interests will lead women away from God’s purpose in the text. That is to see Jesus as the one who heals, forgives and reconciles the sinner to both the Father and to one another. 

4. Does the writer consistently write from a Trinitarian perspective, lifting up the one God who has been revealed to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

Several times Aymer refers to the Trinity. When writing about her confession, she states, “I confess that I am not a fearless follower, but with the help of the Triune God, I am growing more and more faithful every day” (p. 67).  Writing about what it means to rejoice in persecution, she states, “The promise is that, even in midst of persecution, the Triune God of our Christian confession is concerned with, and is, in ways seen and unseen, standing with Christ’s faithful disciples” (p. 74).

In other places in the lessons Aymer makes references which seem to include all of the persons of the Trinity. For instance she states, “With the help of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, I recommit myself to the joyful work of peacemaking, that the world may know God’s shalom” (p.59).

So in a very affirming manner Aymer lifts up the Trinity, and yet there is a Trinitarian problem. Biblically one understands the attributes and acts of God from the biblical revelation of Jesus Christ. The ultimate redemptive actions of the Triune God are known because of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection. But that redemptive quality is missing from Aymer’s Bible study.

Aymer teaches Jesus’ revelation of God’s mercy only as an example of how we should live rather than a redemptive dying that pays the sinner’s debt. She writes:

Jesus shows us God’s mercy by how he lived and ministered and died, even calling for forgiveness from the unforgiving wood of the cross. The Holy Spirit teaches us to show mercy to those who have not shown mercy, even as we have been shown mercy beyond our deserving (p. 43).

On one level she is right. Christ’s death does teach us to show mercy; but it does so much more. His death actually is the means of our salvation from our sins; by his dying and rising Jesus is vindicated by the Father, and by his Holy Spirit the righteousness of Christ is applied to us who have none. If Jesus is only an example of righteousness for us to follow, and we do not have the natural inclination to do the same, what good will an example, no matter how poignant, do us.

Aymer summarizes her understanding of the Christian life by referring to the examples of Jacob wrestling with God (Gen 32:22-32) and the call of Isaiah (Isa 6:1-13):

At the heart of the matter, then, is a spiral: those who are genuine, who live out their faith with integrity, will be drawn toward the face of God, where they will wrestle, be renamed, and be purified. Then they will be sent out to bear witness and face community shaming, both by what they say and by how they live. And, in living out their lives with integrity, they will be drawn to see God’s face once again (p.50).

Aymer misses the most biblical aspect of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the one holy God has in the Incarnation redeemed those who did not love or honor God. He did not wait for us to be genuine or live our lives with integrity before drawing us to himself. God, in the Son, has through his blood bought a people who were dead in their sins, in order to transform them, not by setting them an example, but by indwelling them in the power of the Holy Spirit, making them willing and able, where they were obstinate and incapable, to live out the mercy of God. 

5. What is the mission emphasis of the study?  Does it hold up the person and work of Christ, and His power to transform individual lives, as of equal importance to political, social, and economic change?

On the inside front cover it is stated that the Churchwide Coordinating Team of Presbyterian Women has requested the annual Horizons Bible Study topic "address directly some of the most difficult issues facing the world today: the economy, hunger, poverty, Christian community, water issues, a woman's role in society, faith and the public life, and justice and peace."  In light of such a statement it should not be surprising that the study does not hold up the person and work of Christ and his transforming power, but rather places its emphasis upon the examination of political, social, and economic issues.

This is precisely the emphasis, as expected from such a direction given by the Churchwide Coordinating Team, reflected in the Beatitudes study.  In each lesson the economic and political situation of the particular group under discussion, the poor, the mourners, etc. is what is highlighted.

Aymer's translations of the Beatitudes makes this even more pointed.  She recasts those whom Jesus calls blessed into people who are political or economic victims, rather than those Jesus commends for a particular virtue or attitude held in whatever their circumstances.  For example, it is not the humble, but rather the humbled, who are blessed, or, as Aymer translates it, "greatly honored."  In Aymer's view, a person who is blessed is not someone who enjoys a right relationship with God, no matter who Caesar is.  Rather it is someone who has been downtrodden or victimized by oppressive elements in society.

This Horizons Bible study therefore does not hold up the person and work of Christ and his power to transform individual lives as of equal importance to political, economic, and social change.  Instead, it asks us to confess our complicity in oppressing others, which we may indeed need to do.  But this is hardly the main point of the Beatitudes, yet it is the focus of the way we put faith into action in this study.  If Christ's power is acknowledged by Aymer, it is in the power to make us want to confess that we have oppressed. Well and good, many times our examination of our lives before the high standards of the Law of God lead us to confession of wrong, but it does not stop there. Putting faith into action in a biblical sense does not let us remain “crying in our soup” so to speak. Instead, when the focus is on Christ and his power over life and death, then we are changed and are enlivened to change the world around us by loving our neighbors as ourselves, and bearing witness to Jesus Christ so that they may know his redemption and power in their lives. God in Christ moves us beyond what we have done wrong to go and do what is right. Oddly enough, because the focus is on great social injustices and not on Christ who is Lord over all, the study misses the power of the Gospel and gets mired in the overwhelming sea of human sin and distress. 

6. When you have finished studying each lesson, do you have a deeper understanding of what it means to be an obedient disciple of Jesus Christ? 

After each lesson, a woman would have a deeper understanding of what it means to be an obedient disciple of Jesus Christ, if being an obedient disciple consisted only of confessing complicity in the crimes of capitalism against those in poor societies, and ordering her life so that she works to prevent further oppression.  Many might agree that this is truly part of being an obedient disciple, but there certainly are more ways in which the Beatitudes are encouraging us to grow!

It might be easier to embrace the socio-economic call for justice had Aymer shown how it arises from the text and Jesus’ commands to his disciples—and this could have been done. Unfortunately Aymer’s call for justice comes from the Accra Confession, a confession written by a body not authorized to make confession for the church as one of its founding principles (p. 80, see statement in #15 of the confession) and that is by no means supported by all Christians.  Furthermore, not everyone agrees that capitalism is sinful, and that a way to become a more obedient disciple of Jesus Christ is to confess having oppressed the downtrodden in the particular ways that Aymer expresses it. So this question cannot be unequivocally answered with either a yes or a no.

 

---

Home | About
Copyright © 2008-2009 Voices of Orthodox Women. All Rights Reserved.  Powered by Nelson Software Designs.